Hi,
On Sat, 12 Feb 2000, Khimenko Victor wrote:
[snip]
> > Can you please send me your .config then (the one that doesn't work)?
> > 2.2.14 should compile for every[1] .config.
> Not for every but for most natural .config's :-)
The footnote named 3 known problems. If you have any other problem, please
let me know! (Preferably by sending me the .config)
> Yes, 2.2.14 is MUCH better here. Since it's basically Cox's kernel :-)
No it is not that way.
> Usually situation is the following:
> Linus's kernels can not be compiled in WAST range of configurations (like
> "everything in modules, everything enabled") while Cox's kernels can do this
> (ok, sometimes there are glitches to but usually compileability of Cox's kernels
> are order of magnitude better then compileability of Linus's kernels).
It's not a Linus versus Alan thing.
During the late 2.1.x series (x>125), I and other
people fixed a lot of those bugs. Not all fixes were incorporated then,
simply because they were not of a good enough quality for the kernel.
Linus managed the first 2.2.x releases, but when 2.3.x activity became
more hectic, Alan took over (as he did for the 2.0 series). The stable
kernels usually only change because of bugfixes or new drivers, and
several of the known "2.1 leftovers" were fixed. But new drivers contain
also new bugs. For 2.2.14, a serious effort was made to make sure that it
compiles (or gives a descriptive #error message) for every .config.
At the time of the 2.2.14 release, only three .config combinations were
known to be problematic. The hfmodem-case is obvious and will not be fixed
due to lack of a maintainer, the IrLPT one was not fixed because the
correct fix came to late (and would not be useful for a long time as IrLPT
was about to be changed in 2.2.15pre1) and finally the IPv6/network bug is
a VERY rare (but still serious) bug in the network-Config.in scripts.
I monitor the 2.2.15pre releases for new bugs on a regular basis, and I
want to try (in cooperation with Alan, Linus and others) to prevent new
problems in the official 2.2.x releases, and in the 2.4.x releases.
> It's more or less normal for development kernels but it's NOT Ok for stable
> ones.
Agreed. And sometimes, compilation is broken on purpose to find "bad"
situations in the development series. Once the major changes settle down,
I (and others of course) will start fixing the "leftover cases".
> I understood that Linus has LOTS OF things to worry about apart of
> compileability of kernels with weird .config but then perhaps Cox should
> release stable kernels from the very beginning ?
Again, it is not Linus versus Alan. It's a maturity thing. Fixing takes
time, and starting too soon would hinder progress in the development
series.
Greetings,
Arjan van de Ven
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 15 2000 - 21:00:23 EST